I attended the Western Conservative Summitâs Saturday session and heard Ted Cruz speak.

According to Rick Palacio, the Colorado Democratic Party chairman who was monitoring the summitâs speeches, âtodayâs GOP is no longer a big-tent party that is interested in real solutions for all Americans.â

To the contrary, Cruz, in his perceptive speech, outlined three ways to improve life for all Americans today: 1) enact a flat income tax, which has the collateral benefit of reducing the size of the IRS; 2) rescind the Affordable Care Act, which is a looming financial, religious freedom and health care disaster; and 3) restore our national sovereignty by eliminating the enticement of amnesty for those crossing our southern border from Latin America.

Compare these challenging concepts with the Democratsâ claim that the Republicans have initiated a war on women and contraceptive entitlements, and the constant race-baiting, and it becomes clear where the âcircus tentâ has really risen.

Nada P. Graves, Englewood

This letter was published in the July 27 edition.

It would have been difficult for me to listen to the speakers at at the Western Conservative Summit. While there are many positive things occurring in our country, those at the summit appeared to be bitter, negative and full of anger. Wouldnât it be nice if they would recognize the good things occurring in our country, such as the economic recovery, and concentrate their efforts on critical issues such as saving human lives from gun violence and ensuring that our environment and climate are going to be suitable for future generations?

David Ryan, Montrose

This letter was published in the July 27 edition.

At the Western Conservative Conference, Ben Carson called for Americans to work together because âOur country is in a lot of trouble. Itâs really in critical condition.â

His solution amused me: ââŠ people of faith and people of common sense must start working together.â Which comes first, faith or common sense?

Richard Everstine, Greenwood Village

This letter was published in the July 27 edition.

An event purporting to feature conservative âthought leadersâ featured Sarah Palin, introduced by Dan Caplis as âthe most influential woman in the history of the Republican party.â That says it all.

Gene Drumm, Denver

This letter was published in the July 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

1) Straw polls aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Straw polls two years out are worth even less.
2) Mr. Everstine, that line is old and tired. Too many atheists and devout religious want respect, without showing any in return.
3) Republicans don’t like Democrats? Stop the presses!

Papa Smurf

And Democrats can’t abide Republicans! Truths that even Stevie Wonder could see!

peterpi

Yep.

Harpro208

Sarah Palin, introduced by Dan Caplis as âthe most influential woman in the history of the Republican party.â

Was this the set up or the punchline? Either way Dan’s a funny guy.

Pilgrim

What’s happened to the Republican party? I wasn’t a big Reagan or Bush #1 fan but I’m nostalgic for those days now.

Papa Smurf

Don’t look now, but the Democrats took over the position on the political spectrum that was occupied by Republicans three decades ago…. forcing the GOP ever more to the right just to maintain separation. Heck, give ’em two or three more decades and they’ll be making today’s NeoCons and TEA Partiers look like a bunch of old softies.

peterpi

Some feel that the Republicans keep moving the goalposts to the right, and the Democrats keep moving with them. (In other words, the Democrats are spineless.)
Regardless of the perspective, the end result seems as you describe it.

thor

No, the Democrats keep moving further left. That’s the reason for the lack of partisanship.

irisman

Piilgrim is right. We were moderate Republicans years ago, before Reagan was elected. Back then moderate Republicans were pro business, but not anti labor, nor were they campaigning against women and minorities. Pres. Obama could have run as a Republican in the 1960’s or ’70’s

thor

No one is campaigning against women except Democrats. Abortion is the biggest attack on women ever invented. No one ever talks about the mental issues women face after an abortion.

Ed Pearlstein

. She is indeed influential: she’s pretty, she’s religious, and she likes to kill wild animals.

Old_Enough

And she can see Russia from her house!

Granny

Not to mention her ability to use her communications training to push the anger and fear buttons that brought far-right Republican hatred and he tresultant divisiveness to the forefront.

I consider Palin, with her crosshairs over Democrat offices, and hate-filled rhetoric largely responsible for starting the ball of open hatred and violence rolling.

primafacie

Also the Blackberry smartphone, which uses the same crosshairs in their mapping software.

Granny

Right, that’s exactly how she meant it ;>)

Old_Enough

She is truly a piece of work but if we want to award a woman with the hate-filled rhetoric prize we have to go with Ann Coulter who has been spewing venom for years more than Sarah.

Granny

I’d call it a tie ;>)

Old_Enough

It is a tie. I just saw part of Palin’s speech in Denver. She may have had an extra cocktail at lunch or maybe it was just the altitude. Whatever it was, she didn’t make a lot of sense.

Granny

And now, for a mere $9.95/month, you can subscribe to listen to Palin prattle online, and enjoy join in (watch) her family fun. This fun-filled, all about Sarah site is quality entertainment that costs more than a subscription to Netflx – LOL!

Papa Smurf

You guys spending all your time talking about her and getting your panties in a twist over how much influence she has is exactly what is keeping her relevant. Every time you say her name, or Ann Coulter’s, you re-energize them. Want to see them fade into obscurity? Ignore them.

GenePH

Nada P. Graves of Englewood sums it up nicely.

Henry Brubaker

Nada has mentioned 3 silver bullets to make people happier. 1) will my taxes go up in a flat tax and will that solve the fiscal imbalances? 2) will health care be fixed by repealing obamacare? 3) will elimination of amnesty fix the border and immigration crisis?

It looks like these are not silver bullets, just more ammunition.

irisman

The flat tax is a Zombie idea that keeps on returning from the dead. all the flat tax scheme give the rich a big tax cut (as if they really need it), and usually the proposed rates are so low that the flat tax wouldn’t come close to funding basic government services.

johnrpack

We need to eliminate income tax altogether — and replace it with a national sales tax that has no exceptions. But before that, we need to halve government spending.

tomfromthenews

Cool. Let’s start with defense spending.

johnrpack

While I have no problem cutting Department of War spending (let’s face it, very little of it is “defense”), you’ll never get agreement unless the cuts are across the board and share the pain equally.

kelcy

Have to remember that the majority of non-discretionary spending belongs to social security, medicare and medicaid and to a lesser extent VA disability and military retirement.

Should we begin to means test social security? No matter what people think there will be a lot fewer who do not collect SS than most people think. There is this surreal belief that a certain over 65 generation has all these riches stashed away. Sure they do. In their homes which we would most likely choose not to include because if they sold them to obtain the equity they are now having to pay rent which will deplete their savings rapidly if they live past 80. My dad would have fallen into this category. When the interest rates went down in the early 2000’s he was living on principle and I figured he’d be broke by the time he hit 85. I was already figuring out how to get him to live with me when he died. However, my in-laws are some of the wealthy ones and could means test out of social security without batting an eyelash.

Medicare? Sure. I am all for having treatment boards that, without regard for specific individuals, says what treatments will be paid for by public money based on efficacy of treatments. The numbers don’t lie but we do lie to ourselves. That we treat anything and everything even though the numbers show only a few will benefit is why the last 18 months of our lives are so darn expensive. Dad’s oncologist offered and medicare paid for treatment that had almost zero chance of working on someone his age and the taxpayer paid for it. Hospice was much more humane in the end. We treat people who have dementia for all kinds of things for years which to me is torture yet angst over a two hour death process for a death row inmate who killed two people. My cousin says my uncle could have been saved or had his life extended (he was 93) despite having had dementia for six years to the point where they were moving him into a care facility.

How about medicaid? Let’s not forget that the majority of medicaid payments are for medicare eligible folks who did not have long term care insurance and paid down their “wealth” in order to only have a couple of thousand left so the taxpayer would pay for their care. Minor point for some probably but many of those with the means don’t really pay it down but disperse it in such a way that it appears they have nothing. We know this. It is no secret.

I won’t even discuss the last two because at least the VA disability has recently been in the news.

johnrpack

Every government expense is discretionary. Why? Because the same people who can pass laws to determine what is or is not discretionary are the ones passing the budget.

SS and Medicare should be included in the across-the-board cuts, as should every single government program and every single government wage — starting with Congress and the President.

reinhold23

A national sales tax is regressive on income, meaning the poor shoulder a heavier burden than the rich. It’s a terrible, inequitable idea.

johnrpack

Yes, but one can choose not to pay the tax simply by not buying something. That gives one perfect control over how much one pays in taxes.

By no exceptions, I mean every item imported into the country pays the same tax. Every item bought for any reason pays the tax. That’s the only way the tax can be “fair.”

The rich would all pay the tax as well. You see money invested in a bank or the stock market or a business is all spent by the recipient — and the rates paid on such money would be reduced accordingly. So the tax would be very fair and fall mainly on those who spend the most — which is those who have the most.

The only exception would be on an item that’s re-sold. The tax would be paid on the item when purchase, but when it’s sold (and the tax is collected on the sale) then (and only then) the tax paid when the item was purchased would be deducted from the new tax collected.

The rich control our government, so don’t kid yourself into thinking they pay more under the current system. Just remember that every asset they own is a corporate asset, used for business and deducted as a corporate expense. They currently pay no tax whatsoever on those yachts, Lear jets, box seats, and limos. My way they pay the sales tax — no matter what entity owns it or how it’s used.

But you’re right that the tax would be unpopular — since people would be reminded of how much they pay with every single purchase. I can’t think of a better way to increase the pressure to cut government spending.

reinhold23

“Yes, but one can choose not to pay the tax simply by not buying something. That gives one perfect control over how much one pays in taxes.”

Only if you discount the fact that most working poor must spend almost every cent of their income to get by month to month.

johnrpack

One of the financial myths of our time is that the poor must spend every cent they bring in. They do, of course. That’s what makes them poor. But with the tax in place, they’d quickly adjust to the new pricing.

Remember that our welfare programs make sure that no one falls too low.

reinhold23

Have you seen average rents in the Denver metro area lately? I can’t imagine trying to get by on minimum wage.

johnrpack

Hmmmm, let’s see. I made minimum wage for exactly 4 weeks at my first job (and two of those weeks were below minimum as a “training wage”). Then I got a raise for taking initiative. I’ve never made minimum wage since.

No one makes minimum wage for very long unless they’re purposefully remaining unskilled.

Old_Enough

Which also makes them the drivers of our economy which depends mainly on consumerism.

thor

I hope you are not spreading the lie that people on minimum wage are drivers of the economy.

johnrpack

As for me, I’ll take Obama at his word (from 2008): âThe problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years, is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first forty-two presidents â number forty-three added $4 trillion all by his lonesome â so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that weâre going to have to pay back – $30,000 for every man, woman and child. Thatâs irresponsible. Itâs unpatriotic!â

tomfromthenews

Of course, then came 2009, when catastrophic economic conditions not of his doing forced the president to use federal monies to prevent another Great Depression. He basically saves the nation and has received nothing but virulent attacks from the right. Can you imagine where we, and the banking and auto industries (who have been repaying their debts to the government with interest) would be if he had not acted as he did?

johnrpack

Yes, I can imagine. Instead of stagnation and an eroding currency, we’d have had 30% real growth, an unemployment rate of 5%, and half the debt level.

Evidence suggests FDRs spending programs took a two year recession and turned it into the Great Depression. Bush’s uncontrolled spending put us into recession, while Obama’s binge has kept us in it and endangered our currency.

We need both of the older political parties removed from our government.

tomfromthenews

And now it’s your turn to explain how a Depression (possibly worldwide) causes “…30% real growth, an unemployment rate of 5%, and half the debt level”. Let the spin machine begin!

johnrpack

The Depression would not cause growth (by definition). But the government reaction to it often slows recovery.

See the following two articles for how FDRs policies and spending delayed economic recovery during the Great Depression:

In the same way, the massive government bailouts of Bush and Obama (which largely went to their campaign donors) did not speed us out of the Great Recession — turning it into a six-year economic malaise rather than what would have likely been a two-year dip. Worse, they endanger our currency and threaten to send us back down again if we don’t bring government spending under control.

But don’t worry, I blame Bush more than I blame your buddy Obama. I’m just not partisan enough to think it’s only the other guys.

Papa Smurf

Preach it, Brother! The beauty of a capitalist economy is that it tends to be self-correcting, as long as it isn’t interfered with too strongly by the deliberately incompetent (read: politicians… of all stripes).

reinhold23

The national debt is not the primary issue facing this country.

johnrpack

True, government spending is the primary issue. The national debt (the real one, not just what’s announced) is a symptom of that problem.

But with other nations no longer buying our debt, the Fed printing money (by monetizing the unsold debt), and China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, France, and India all negotiating treaties to remove the dollar from foreign exchange as quickly as they can (China has signed four this year alone), the dollar will no longer be the world reserve currency in the next 18-24 months. At that point, we can expect serious inflation. Realistically, that is the ONLY issue facing our nation. We can correct it only by drastically reducing government spending now.

reinhold23

Inflation hawks have been predicting exactly this for 6 years, and they’ve been wrong every step of the way. Forgive me for not believing your dire predictions today.

johnrpack

Those inflation hawks are wrong (even today) because they’re partisans — not objective analysts. All they care about is making Obama look or sound bad. They only care about Obama’s spending — and pretend Bush wasn’t as bad or worse.

What they all ignore is that, right now, the Fed can print as much money as it wants and the other nations of the world are stuck with it. That’s only true because we’re the world’s default currency and the world’s reserve currency. Other major nations are already taking serious action to change that status. When we reach the tipping point, the inflation that printing money brings will hit us. For 2-3 years, it will be merely 10-20% inflation. If the government doesn’t stop its spending during that time frame, our money’s value will drop to near zero (inflation over one million %) in the third or fourth year.

My analysis is based on the experience of Weimar Republic Germany (1918-1923) and England (1950-1975). Interestingly, after I shared a detailed report with my brother, he connected me with a Wall Street Currency Analyst who had told him the same thing about a month earlier — but from an analysis of monetization, treaties, spending, and other currencies. The only variables at this point are the speed at which our currency loses its status, the weakness of foreign currency, and the unlikely change in our government’s spending habits. Unlike me, he actually thinks we’re like a cartoon character that’s already over the cliff — and just waiting for the drop. I think we could still stop if we balanced the budget for 2015.

reinhold23

I’m not convinced that the reserve currency issue looms as large as you say. To my understanding, the most crucial detail is that we borrow and owe our debts in our own currency.

Lessons from Weimar are not applicable to today’s monetary situation because we remain in a liquidity trap.

johnrpack

Yes, we owe our debt in our own currency. But sales of our debt are decreasing as foreign nations refuse to buy and have begun to reduce their dollar reserves. Other nations aren’t happy with the way the dollar is being managed. Shortly (18-24 months), we will no longer be able to secure debt in dollars.

The lessons of Weimar will become applicable as the dollar is abandoned.

reinhold23

Guess we’ll find out!

holyreality

You fear phantoms while the real villains are hidden behind widely adored figureheads.
The national debt is the tip of a very large and very powerful iceberg.

johnrpack

OK, I’m impressed. What should we do about it?

holyreality

We can educate fellow citizens who believe the Fed is the Federal government and not the hydra on the right in the illustration.

We are so busy hating our government with Congress tasked with money creation, that was farmed out to a private bank system.

Debt is money, try looking up fractional reserve money creation, or the Goldsmith’s Tale. The Federal Reserve Act effectively puts normal working Americans in debt to these private bankers to such an extent that we are wage slaves with invisible chains forcing us to toil so we can keep our families off the streets.

The more we know about this monster, the more we can tell others. Once the percentage of the population that is enraged by this scam reaches critical mass, an American Spring could take over and a Bastille day of the Federal Reserve banksters could proceed.

Or we could do nothing, laugh and suggest tinfoil hats, and pontificate the Koch Brother lines we hear on FOX news.

johnrpack

I recommend supporting the “Audit the Fed” bill being considered by the House of Representatives. One of the first steps is to remove the Fed’s disguise.

holyreality

The more people who know will be the more the idea of this hydra will be accepted. The topic is boring at best, and it is far too easy still to roll one’s eyes laugh and suggest conspiracy theory twirling a finger around your ear.

By putting it in common sense terms, we can grasp the extent of the problem nobody wants to acknowledge. After folks begin to see the trap, they too can rant and have friends resent being told the truth. This must spread until the “loony” reaction is stale. Then an audit the Fed bill has traction.

holyreality

A flat income tax?
That puts the burden on us proles who survive paycheck to paycheck while Mr Fat Cat on Wall Street torches C-notes to light a cigar laughing at the doofusses who demand it easier for him.

Papa Smurf

And there it is, for all to see… plain as the nose on his face. The politics of envy. If anybody makes more than holyreality, why it just isn’t… isn’t… fair!

25% Of what I make is just that… 25%. And it’s the same for the guy who makes $10 Mil… 25%. But it’s a whole lot more actual dollars for him than it is for me. And that’s the very definition of fair.

Actually, I prefer the so-called “Fair Tax” scheme to the flat tax… it at least has some graduation and is marginally “progressive.” Four tiers, if I’m not mistaken, starting with zero tax liability below a certain income level, and above that, three subsequent levels topping out around 30-33%… no exemptions, no deductions, no credits… nothing. Everybody pays the full freight for his particular bracket. No exceptions. Heck, the entire tax code could fit on a cocktail napkin.

Or in the alternative, a national sales tax, with certain “necessity of life” items exempted (Bread = yes, Croissants = no; eggs = yes, Beluga caviar = no). You get the idea.

But that would make too much sense, and it wouldn’t allow politicians and political parties to curry favor with certain “special” groups and constituencies. So don’t look for anything better any time soon.

johnrpack

The problem is the definition of income — which is controlled by the campaign donors. If my corporation can buy my limo, lear jet, and yacht, provided I use each for a business meeting each year and deduct 100% of it as expenses, then a graduated income tax system is largely irrelevant.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.